How Democratic Is the UK really?

What is a democracy?

A typical democracy refers to the idea that the government is chosen and elected by the people, thereby giving citizens the right to elect their leaders.

There are many different forms of democratic governance around the world, but they can all trace their origins back to  Ancient Greece - with the word ‘democracy’ coming from the Greek word ‘demos’ meaning people, and ‘kratos’ meaning power and rule.

Over the centuries, democracies have been shaped and evolved from their original format, with most including all citizens regardless of gender, race and social status - and in many ways it is still evolving and improving to be made more reflective, representative and equal.

What makes a strong democracy?

A resilient democracy seeks to achieve high participation of citizens, as with greater input into government policy and agenda, as it can grant democracies an increased sense of accountability to the people they serve, along with the feeling that their voices do have power to shape their country.

Additionally, it is key for any democracy to safeguard the rule of law and human rights, as without these, governments have the power to erode the rights of those they are meant to serve and grant them unchecked power - putting them well above the very people they were elected to serve.

The more plural a country becomes in terms of the number of parties, the more equal and balanced the legislature becomes - allowing for greater precedence of smaller voices; and thus greater checks on power of those in high office.

And finally, the ability of political leaders and groups to accept the results of free and fair elections is a basic cornerstone of the democratic process. Without it, fear and distrust can spread - weakening the very institutions that have been built to serve their citizens.

The UK Voting System

The first thing to note is the method that is used here in the UK to elect our MPs. For centuries, we have used the same “First-Past-The-Post” system (or FPTP) - under this method, a candidate with the largest share of the votes is elected, despite not winning an overall majority. This could mean for example, that a candidate can win a constituency seat despite 60% of the electorate not voting for the.

For context, no other country in Europe apart from Belarus uses this system of voting - mostly as it is not seen as a very fair, or democratic method to conduct elections. The main benefit of the FPTP system it is very good at returning strong governments to the House of Commons, handing a single party a majority - compared to the more democratic and consensus based approach of building a coalition to build a government (often from smaller parties)

In recent years, the approach of “tactical voting” is taking increased precedence; referring to the method of voting for a party that has the greatest chance of ousting the sitting MP - used extensively in the recent 2024 General Election to bring about the removal of the Conservative government.

As the UK currently operates under a “constitutional monarchy” it means that the Head of State is actually the monarch (the King), who is selected based on hereditary status - passing on from parents to their children. Instead, the UK’s democratic leader is the Prime Minister (PM) who fulfils the role as Head of Government - this is due to the fact that our democracy is a “parliamentary democracy”. Importantly, we do not directly elect our PM, but rather our local MPs - making the number of MPs a party has the determining factor of which party leader goes on to become the PM.

How does the UK compare?

Similar to the UK, Norway is also a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy - yet ranks the most democratic country in Europe. So if our model of government is not the issue, what is?

Norway makes use of the “proportional representation” model; which is actually utilised by most European countries, as it ensures that the percentage of votes a party gets is reflected equally in the legislature - giving equal distribution of seats. As a result Norway has a vibrant multi-party system, that leads to a greater array of opinions and political views, promoting greater cooperation and compromise.

In the 2024, General Election, Reform UK received about 4 million votes or so nationwide, yet due to FPTP only received 5 seats in the House of Commons. This illustrated the level of unfair representation promoted by the UK electoral system, creating high levels of underrepresentation and possible disillusionment in the system.

Party	% of votes	seats	% of seats
Labour	33.7	412	63.2
Conservative	23.7	121	18.6
Lib Dem	12.2	71	11.1
Reform	14.3	5	1

This level of influence granted to one party in the Commons, pretty much ensures near subjugation of Parliament - as the governing party often have an outright majority, meaning the government will succeed in (nearly) all divisions/votes. Thereby, giving the PM and Leader of the Party a kind of “elective dictatorship” as opposition parties lack much power, and the level of pressure they can apply to the government is limited; especially if they are not the Official Opposition party - currently the Conservative party.

How is power shared in the UK?

The UK consists of 4 devolved nations; Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland - with each region having a set number of seats available at each General Election. The amount for each is as follows;

Scotland - 57 seats

N. Ireland - 18 seats

Wales - 32 seats

England - 543 seats

As you can already see, there is a significant disparity between the number of seats for each region - although each seat consists of between 50,000-70,000 constituents on average, making them representative of the population of each region - it leads to a significant power imbalance in Parliament, all but making the other regions insignificant in the big picture.

(Visual representation of how the number of seats compare)

While the number of seats compared to the population is relatively accurate, it is deeply unfair as it means that vote and thus seats in England have a greater weight and importance than those elsewhere in the UK.

However in the past 30 years or so, the government has embarked on a process of “devolution” which basically refers to giving each region of the country their own governments that legislate on regionally important issues - instead of national ones as in Westminster. Many (but not all) have the ability to decide how and where their budget is spent and general powers over the day to day running of each region.

Intended to make power more accessible to UK citizens in areas other than England, each region is permitted to have a “First Minister” who act as the Head of Government for the region - although it is important to note that they are nowhere near as powerful as the Prime Minister. Surprisingly, each region uses some method of proportional representation when electing members to their assemblies, with the two main ones being; the Additional Member System and the Single Transferable vote system.

The Additional member system combines the strengths of FPTP and creates additional larger ‘regions’, meaning constituents would have two votes - one for their constituency candidate and then another vote for their regional representative. As a result, this blended method of electoral systems constructs a far more representative and balanced chamber.

The Single Transferable Vote System - only used in Northern Ireland - is the only entirely proportional method of electing representatives in the UK. Voters rank each candidate from 1 (being the preferred) and then numbered backwards in terms of preference. The winner is outright declared when a set quota of votes is reached - if no one reaches the quota, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and their votes are transferred to the other candidates in terms of preference. This helps to ensure a truly fair, equal and representative regional government for all voters.

Can people speak freely in the UK?

In a survey by YouGov in the end of 2024, about 58% of respondents said that they believe they can’t speak freely without incurring judgement or discrimination - and among 16-24 yr olds about 49% believed they could not speak freely. Only 42% of respondents believed that they could speak freely.

So what does this mean?

Crucially, the fall in free speech rights - such as freedom to protest - have come under attack in recent years. While a majority of Britons believe that there should be restrictions on offensive or hateful language, there is growing distrust and concern in the institutional right to free speech. As a cornerstone of democracy, this signals a potentially damaging and harmful sign for our democracy, which afterall thrives on a diverse array of thoughts and views.

Additionally, this other YouGov poll (right), seems to suggest that women tend to feel more pressured to reconsider what they would like to say compared to men, who are scared of the treatment they may receive. This means the UK still lacks an equal share of views from both genders - which could lead to a significant group of women who feel that they are not able to be listened to.

Is democracy facing a crisis in confidence?

Is it really a surprise then that confidence in the democratic process appears to be at an all time low? Roughly 25% of the public currently see the UK as outright undemocratic, and 75% believing the UK to be somewhat democratic.  

Remarkably, their is also a noticeable shift in the views of younger generations, as recent polls suggest that there is about 50% of Gen Z that believe dictatorship or similar methods of governance may be better than democracy - although as a whole (77%) Brits in general believe that the idea of democratic governance is a good idea, but the UK’s current political system pull down the efficacy and confidence of democracy.

A decrease in certain factors such as; Transparency, Accountability, Lack of Consensus and voter participation, suggest that in recent years the democratic process has been weakened and eroded. 

In the recent General Election, the UK had the lowest voter participation since 2001, and one of the lowest turnouts in history. A decrease in voter turnout, means that the ruling party has even less of a mandate from which to govern. Therefore, it can reduce the feelings of accountability of the government as the government can “do what they want” without overall support from the electorate.

It’s important to note, that since the 2019 General Election new Voter ID laws were introduced for elections - which likely contributed to lower turnout of voters viewing voting as too much of a hassle to bother in the first place, which can lead to greater numbers of people left feeling that their voices are unheard or even represented.

So what are the key takeaways?

The EIU recently ranked the UK with other European nations and gave us a 9.58/10 for our “pluralism” - our highest score, but a 6.88/10 for our “political culture”, marking a downturn in our healthy political engagement and discourse, which could stem from protest and speech restrictions but also the way in which we conduct and participate in contentious debates.

The increasing amount of apathy here in the UK is also being felt in our democracy, with YouGov finding 35% of respondents believing that in the last 10-20 years that the UK has instead become less democratic instead of more democratic - adding to growing pressures to reform the electoral system and even parliament itself in order to fix this crisis in confidence.

Adding to the ideas of further reforms, greater devolution is being hailed as a potential boost for the UK’s democracy, reducing representative disparities across areas of England. The greatest examples of how this could be done is by rolling out “regional mayors” as seen in Manchester, Birmingham and London or even “unitary authorities” with enhanced powers granted by the government. Regional representation in decision making could provide a useful method of helping to reduce regional inequalities and giving locals the ability to change their regions for the better - placing more power into the hands of locals.

The UK is far from being an undemocratic nation, but if recent years are anything to go by, it suggests that the UK is more of a “flawed democracy” - partly being attributed to the fact that the current electoral system fails in it’s main objective of representing the views of constituents. Furthermore, the worrying fall in the right to freedom of speech and expression proves harmful to the overall political ecosystem which requires equal and fair input into debates and consensus building. Notably, a lack of “power sharing” is driving forwards regional inequalities and push the idea that Parliament only acts in it’s own interests or the interests of England, rather than the country as a whole - the exact opposite of what a strong, fair and equal democratic system should be.

It is therefore my opinion that immediate reforms are needed to the current system in order to uplift the UK’s democracy and bring it becoming better at performing it’s role or representation well, starting with the electoral system and the Upper House (House of Lords) - as if a majority of people believe the current system is not performing well, then we have a failing democracy, and we can’t wait around for it to be fixed.